Superstars needed?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Superstars needed?

    Right now we have the Pacers and the Grizzlies and the Bulls still in the thick of the playoffs. None of these teams have what you would call a real superstar.  Question is do you really need a superstar to win and be competitive in this league?  We have some posters that believe you have to have a superstar to win.  Sure they get more calls than most, but I like these type of teams that don't rely on one player to get it done.  

    The Pacers look very good right now.  The Bulls are also good considering they don't get a fair shake from the officials and playing some 3rd stringers.  The Grizzlies have the defensive capability to get to the finals.

     

    Thoughts?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kyceltic. Show kyceltic's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    Right now we have the Pacers and the Grizzlies and the Bulls still in the thick of the playoffs. None of these teams have what you would call a real superstar.  Question is do you really need a superstar to win and be competitive in this league?  We have some posters that believe you have to have a superstar to win.  Sure they get more calls than most, but I like these type of teams that don't rely on one player to get it done.  

    The Pacers look very good right now.  The Bulls are also good considering they don't get a fair shake from the officials and playing some 3rd stringers.  The Grizzlies have the defensive capability to get to the finals.

     

    Thoughts?

      I think Noah helps the Bulls in so many different ways, you would have to consider him a super star.  You're right about the Pacers and the Grizzlies, but would the Grizzlies be winning if Westbrook who is a super star was playing?  I thought the Celtics played terrible against the Knicks, so it's no surprise to me the Pacers are winning that series.

    Both the Pacers and the Grizzlies are big teams. I think a lot of teams have trouble matching up with them. That's why i hate it when the Celtics go to small ball. Danny has to get Doc some bigger players!!  You will never beat the Heat at their own game, it will take a bigger more physical team to defeat them.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to kyceltic's comment:

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

     

    Right now we have the Pacers and the Grizzlies and the Bulls still in the thick of the playoffs. None of these teams have what you would call a real superstar.  Question is do you really need a superstar to win and be competitive in this league?  We have some posters that believe you have to have a superstar to win.  Sure they get more calls than most, but I like these type of teams that don't rely on one player to get it done.  

    The Pacers look very good right now.  The Bulls are also good considering they don't get a fair shake from the officials and playing some 3rd stringers.  The Grizzlies have the defensive capability to get to the finals.

     

    Thoughts?

     

      I think Noah helps the Bulls in so many different ways, you would have to consider him a super star.  You're right about the Pacers and the Grizzlies, but would the Grizzlies be winning if Westbrook who is a super star was playing?  I thought the Celtics played terrible against the Knicks, so it's no surprise to me the Pacers are winning that series.

    Both the Pacers and the Grizzlies are big teams. I think a lot of teams have trouble matching up with them. That's why i hate it when the Celtics go to small ball. Danny has to get Doc some bigger players!!  You will never beat the Heat at their own game, it will take a bigger more physical team to defeat them.

     

     



    The Bulls are a big team as well.  Notice how the scores have for the most part gotten a lot lower in the playoffs?   I think the Grizz would still have a chance even with Westbrook but I would still say the Thunder would win but my darkhorse pick before the playoffs ever started would have been the Grizz.  They play defense and rebound good.  I think Conley has turned into a top point guard without all the highlights like Paul and Westbrook.  I would take Conley for the money over any pt guard in the league.

    Noah is really good but when I think superstar I think of Durant and James.  Next level is Melo, Westbrook, Wade etc.  Noah makes teams like the Bulls good.  That is why  they don't have to have a superstar.  If Conley played with the Bulls this year I think they could be the team to beat.  Not so sure If I was the Bulls I would see what I could trade Rose for. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kyceltic. Show kyceltic's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    In response to kyceltic's comment:

     

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

     

    Right now we have the Pacers and the Grizzlies and the Bulls still in the thick of the playoffs. None of these teams have what you would call a real superstar.  Question is do you really need a superstar to win and be competitive in this league?  We have some posters that believe you have to have a superstar to win.  Sure they get more calls than most, but I like these type of teams that don't rely on one player to get it done.  

    The Pacers look very good right now.  The Bulls are also good considering they don't get a fair shake from the officials and playing some 3rd stringers.  The Grizzlies have the defensive capability to get to the finals.

     

    Thoughts?

     

      I think Noah helps the Bulls in so many different ways, you would have to consider him a super star.  You're right about the Pacers and the Grizzlies, but would the Grizzlies be winning if Westbrook who is a super star was playing?  I thought the Celtics played terrible against the Knicks, so it's no surprise to me the Pacers are winning that series.

    Both the Pacers and the Grizzlies are big teams. I think a lot of teams have trouble matching up with them. That's why i hate it when the Celtics go to small ball. Danny has to get Doc some bigger players!!  You will never beat the Heat at their own game, it will take a bigger more physical team to defeat them.

     

     

     



    The Bulls are a big team as well.  Notice how the scores have for the most part gotten a lot lower in the playoffs?   I think the Grizz would still have a chance even with Westbrook but I would still say the Thunder would win but my darkhorse pick before the playoffs ever started would have been the Grizz.  They play defense and rebound good.  I think Conley has turned into a top point guard without all the highlights like Paul and Westbrook.  I would take Conley for the money over any pt guard in the league.

     

    Noah is really good but when I think superstar I think of Durant and James.  Next level is Melo, Westbrook, Wade etc.  Noah makes teams like the Bulls good.  That is why  they don't have to have a superstar.  If Conley played with the Bulls this year I think they could be the team to beat.  Not so sure If I was the Bulls I would see what I could trade Rose for. 

    Agree about Conley, i think he may be the most under rated player in the league. If the Bulls didn't have so many injuries, the Heat would be in trouble!!


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jgallag1. Show jgallag1's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    Bulls: Noah/Boozer   11.1/9.8  11.9/16.2

    Grizz: Gasol/Randolph 7.8/11.2   14.1/15.4

    Pacers: Hibbert/West  8.3/7.7  11.9/17.1

    Celtics: Garnett/Bass 7.8/5.2  14.8/8.7

     

    That's the Rebounds per game and points per game for the starting Center and Power Forward during the regular season. These teams are just very well put together, with very solid frontcourts to go with their very capable 1-2-3 guys. The Grizz have Conley and Allen to go along with Prince, who while older, still plays good D and does all the dirty work. The Pacers have George and Hill, both very solid guys who have stepped up in Granger's place. They also have Augustin and Stephenson who just add to a very solid team.

     

    And then you have the Bulls, who I think have been put together masterfully. You have one of the biggest stars in the league go down in Rose, but guys step up. Deng has always been a bit overrated to me (like Boozer), but he's a very good wing. You have a sparkplug in Robinson, who seems to have finally added some smarts to his talent. Hinrich, Butler, Hamilton, Gibson and Mohammed give AMAZING depth, and I think Belinelli is one of the most underrated players in the league this year. They've put together a team of veterans, a few of which have been "failed" franchise players (Boozer, Deng) or successful team leaders (Hinrich, Hamilton) and created what seems to me to be the best top to bottom team out there. Their star power isn't anything like the Heat, or even the Celtics for that matter, but the worst player they have would probably be a rotation guy on most teams in the league. Add great coaching to that, and you've got one hell of a squad.

     

    But back to the matter at hand, all of these teams, who are genuine TEAMS, have their most consistant production coming from the frontcourt. A big, solid C/PF tandem is the way you win when you don't have a LeBron James. And that's where the C's need to focus. Add a legit C, and get some depth for Sully's injury issues. If you keep Garnett, he needs a frontcourt partner who can bang inside and go get those rebounds when he misses his outside shots. And you need a scoring partner for Sully.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    Sometimes it good just to look at the statistics.

    2011-12 Miami Heat Oklahoma City Thunder 4-1 Lebron James

    2010-11 Dallas Mavericks Miami Heat 4-2 Dirk Nowitzki

    2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers Boston Celtics 4-3 Kobe Bryant

    2008-09 Los Angeles Lakers Orlando Magic 4-1 Kobe Bryant

    2007-08 Boston Celtics Los Angeles Lakers 4-2 Paul Pierce

    2006-07 San Antonio Spurs Cleveland Cavaliers 4-0 Tony Parker

    2005-06 Miami Heat Dallas Mavericks 4-2 Dwyane Wade

    2004-05 San Antonio Spurs Detroit Pistons 4-3 Tim Duncan

    2003-04 Detroit Pistons Los Angeles Lakers 4-1 Chauncey Billups

    2002-03 San Antonio Spurs New Jersey Nets 4-2 Tim Duncan

    2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers New Jersey Nets 4-0 Shaquille O'Neal

    2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia 76ers 4-1 Shaquille O'Neal

    1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers Indiana Pacers 4-2 Shaquille O'Neal

    1998-99 San Antonio Spurs New York Knicks 4-1 Tim Duncan

    1997-98 Chicago Bulls Utah Jazz 4-2 Michael Jordan

    1996-97 Chicago Bulls Utah Jazz 4-2 Michael Jordan

    1995-96 Chicago Bulls Seattle SuperSonics 4-2 Michael Jordan

    1994-95 Houston Rockets Orlando Magic 4-0 Hakeem Olajuwon

    1993-94 Houston Rockets New York Knicks 4-3 Hakeem Olajuwon

    1992-93 Chicago Bulls Phoenix Suns 4-2 Michael Jordan

    1991-92 Chicago Bulls Portland Trail Blazers 4-2 Michael Jordan

    1990-91 Chicago Bulls Los Angeles Lakers 4-1 Michael Jordan

     

    If you look at the time span down to the first Bulls title, only one a team won without a legit first or second tier superstar. The Pistons with Billups and co. IMO: When Malone didn't go down this would be a Lakers title as well. And only twice the biggest star of the team wasn't the finals MVP (Boston with Pierce and San Antonio with Parker), maybe Miami with Wade and O'Neal as well.

     

    So history tells: You need a superstar to win a title, and most likely he will win Finals MVP as well. The good thing is: This statistic doesn't tell why it is like this and it also shows, 1 star is typically not enough (exception: first title of houston and maybe Dirks title with the mavs).

     

     

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jgallag1. Show jgallag1's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    At the same time, if you look at it, from 1991 to 2007 there were 4 stars who won championships: MJ, Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq. Most had second stars on the team, Robinson, Pippen, Kobe, Wade, etc. The single team championship came with the Pistons winning with a solid frontcourt of Wallace and Wallace. There's very little way to bring in one of these top stars without either bombing a season with a great draft, or having the pure luck of one of them wanting to go to your team while you happen to have the cap room. As far as actual strategy goes, teambuilding is the only way to build a contender.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    When you think about it the Spurs do not actually have a superstar either.  Sure Parker is a Allstar,  Duncan is as well.  To call them superstars if a little overrated.   They have a mix of good veteran players and young players. 

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    When you think about it the Spurs do not actually have a superstar either.  Sure Parker is a Allstar,  Duncan is as well.  To call them superstars if a little overrated.   They have a mix of good veteran players and young players. 



    Exactly right....

    Duncan is still very good but not a superstar.... the Spurs are an execution team..  maybe Parker is closest to being called a superstar..  Duncan is a 17/10 type player...

    Some people will say anything to be right

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hops29. Show hops29's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    You don't need a superstar to be competitive, but when teams are willing to pay well over the tax to have 2 or 3 superstars it kind of puts everyone else out of the running for a championship.  

    If the Celtics owners were really serious about winning a championship they wouldn't be balking at paying their players $78mil next year.  They would be willing to pay $85-$100mil like the Heat, Lakers, Knicks, and even NJ.

    Paying that much doesn't guarantee a championship but it does prove that you are in it to win it, and not that you are fielding a decent team that is always hoping for a miracle.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from antiqueman1. Show antiqueman1's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    The Bulls are proving that you don't need Superstar(s) to win. They are doing it without theirs(Rose) and have been for some time now. But Superstars will help get more calls, hence win more series.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

     

    When you think about it the Spurs do not actually have a superstar either.  Sure Parker is a Allstar,  Duncan is as well.  To call them superstars if a little overrated.   They have a mix of good veteran players and young players. 

     



    You're crazy!

     

    Duncan is considered the best PF in NBA history, duh!

     



    I am talking about this year.  Duh!!!  You consider 17.8 pts and 9-10  rebounds a game a superstar?  Get a clue dude.  Very good player yes.  No longer a superstar.  Get it?

    Yes we know Duncan is considered a great PF in his prime. Yes you have posted many times how good he is and how KG is not as good.  We get it.  Feel free to post it for the umpteenth time though.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

     

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

     

    When you think about it the Spurs do not actually have a superstar either.  Sure Parker is a Allstar,  Duncan is as well.  To call them superstars if a little overrated.   They have a mix of good veteran players and young players. 

     



    You're crazy!

     

    Duncan is considered the best PF in NBA history, duh!

     

     



    I am talking about this year.  Duh!!!  You consider 17.8 pts and 9-10  rebounds a game a superstar?  Get a clue dude.  Very good player yes.  No longer a superstar.  Get it?

     

    Yes we know Duncan is considered a great PF in his prime. Yes you have posted many times how good he is and how KG is not as good.  We get it.  Feel free to post it for the umpteenth time though.



    He will until you raise the white flag or agree with him just to shut him up... then only another 15 posts of ITOLDYASO's after that..even though hes rarely correct since his attention span to stay on topic is less than the time it takes Usain Bolt to run the 100

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    The Bulls and Pacers are not winning the Eastern Conference, so yes, you need superstars to win a title. As for the Grizzlies, Marc Gasol is probably the most underrated player in the NBA. He's a superstar in my book. The guy rebounds, blocks shots, hits jumpers, passes better than most point guards, he's phenomenal.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to davidap's comment:

    The Bulls and Pacers are not getting out of the second round, so yes, you need superstars to win a title. As for the Grizzlies, Marc Gasol is probably the most underrated player in the NBA. He's a superstar in my book. The guy rebounds, blocks shots, hits jumpers, passes better than most point guards, he's phenomenal.



    You sure about the Pacers, are you?  If the Bulls got a fair shake on the officiating it could get very dicey.  Yes Gasol if a good player.  You may consider him a superstar but most don't.  Even Tyson chandler got defensive player of the year.  Gasol doesn't rebound all that well. He can shoot some though.  Would I take him?  Absolutely

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    OneOnOne, maybe Marc Gasol shouldn't be considered a superstar, but he's at least a borderline one, as is the vastly underrated Zach Randolph. If those guys played in a big market, they would receive the respect they deserve. No one on the Bulls (without Derrick Rose this year) and Pacers comes close. That's why I think it's unfair to lump Memphis in with Chicago and Indiana in any discussion about lacking starpower.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    These playoffs will actually provide a very good use case. Most likely the Heat will need to get through three of the top defensive teams in the league and three of the best big men in the league: Chicago (Noah), Indiana (Hibbert) and Memphis (Gasol). If this is how it slates out for the heat and they aren't taken to at least 7 games ... we know that going big is not the key to defeat the heat.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from basketbert. Show basketbert's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to antiqueman1's comment:

    The Bulls are proving that you don't need Superstar(s) to win. They are doing it without theirs(Rose) and have been for some time now. But Superstars will help get more calls, hence win more series.




    bulls aren't winning anything.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    I am talking about this year.  Duh!!!  You consider 17.8 pts and 9-10  rebounds a game a superstar?  Get a clue dude.  Very good player yes.  No longer a superstar.  Get it?

     

    Yes we know Duncan is considered a great PF in his prime. Yes you have posted many times how good he is and how KG is not as good.  We get it.  Feel free to post it for the umpteenth time though.




    There is still a flaw in your assessment. You are right that, based on his current play Duncan is no Superstar anymore. But also the Spurs have no title since Duncan is no "superstar" anymore. While having a decent regular season, they always underachieved in the postseason. And it looks like the won't win this year as well (Actually Duncan stunk in the last game, when he missed all of his shots in the crunch time). But when they won their titles, Duncan was a star. Or they had Robinson and Duncan as CO-Stars.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from antiqueman1. Show antiqueman1's posts

    Re: Superstars needed?

    In response to basketbert's comment:

    In response to antiqueman1's comment:

     

    The Bulls are proving that you don't need Superstar(s) to win. They are doing it without theirs(Rose) and have been for some time now. But Superstars will help get more calls, hence win more series.

    I did not say they were going to win the Finals, but they are winning. They beat the Heat 3 times this yr. Lost 4 times. That is pretty good considering how depleted they are as a team or have become.




    bulls aren't winning anything.

     




     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share